According to an absolutely shocking study that has just been released, one area of the Pacific Ocean floor was 98 percent covered by decomposing sea creatures in July 2012. But in March 2012, only 1 percent of that same section of the Pacific Ocean floor was covered by dead sea creatures.

This study has been going on for 24 years, and the scientists that are running this study say that during “the past 2 years” they have seen “the biggest amounts of this detritus by far”. In other words, the scientists that are studying this section of the ocean floor have never seen anything quite like this before.

And when you consider this in conjunction with all of the other reports that have been coming in of sea creatures dying all over the Pacific Ocean, it is only natural to start asking some hard questions. Could radiation from Fukushima be responsible for all of this death?

National Geographic recently published a very interesting article about this study of the Pacific Ocean floor. The scientists running the study cannot really explain the very strange changes that they have observed since 2011…

In March 2012, less than one percent of the seafloor beneath Station M was covered in dead sea salps. By July 1, more than 98 percent of it was covered in the decomposing organisms, according to the study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The major increase in activity of deep-sea life in 2011 and 2012 weren’t limited to Station M, though: Other ocean-research stations reported similar data.

Although climate change is a leading contender for explaining the major increases in 2011 and 2012, Huffard says that these spikes could be part of a longer-term trend that scientists haven’t yet observed.

Even though they do not have a “scientific explanation” for what is happening, the scientists are admitting that they have never seen a die-off of this magnitude in the 24 years that this study has been going on…

“In the 24 years of this study, the past 2 years have been the biggest amounts of this detritus by far,” said study leader Christine Huffard, a marine biologist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California.

Could this phenomenon possibly be related to what has been going on at Fukushima?

It should be a fair question to ask. Especially in light of all of the other sea creature deaths that have been happening all over the Pacific. The following is a short excerpt from a recent CNN article…

“One of my favorite sayings right now is we may be experiencing global weirding,” Jim Covel at the Monterey Bay Aquarium said.

The Pacific recently has seen its fair share of weird. Last year, there was an invasion of Humboldt squid around coastal California and sea lion dying off in worrying numbers. And in recent weeks, disturbingly, sea stars – from Alaska to San Diego are wasting away, literally melting.

So what in the world would cause sea stars to begin “literally melting”?

Once again, scientists do not have an answer.

But clearly, something definitely appears to be significantly affecting life throughout the Pacific Ocean. In fact, one very experienced Australian adventurer has stated that he felt as though “the ocean itself was dead” as he journeyed from Japan to San Francisco recently…

The next leg of the long voyage was from Osaka to San Francisco and for most of that trip the desolation was tinged with nauseous horror and a degree of fear.

“After we left Japan, it felt as if the ocean itself was dead,” Macfadyen said.

“We hardly saw any living things. We saw one whale, sort of rolling helplessly on the surface with what looked like a big tumour on its head. It was pretty sickening.

“I’ve done a lot of miles on the ocean in my life and I’m used to seeing turtles, dolphins, sharks and big flurries of feeding birds. But this time, for 3000 nautical miles there was nothing alive to be seen.”

In place of the missing life was garbage in astounding volumes.

“Part of it was the aftermath of the tsunami that hit Japan a couple of years ago. The wave came in over the land, picked up an unbelievable load of stuff and carried it out to sea. And it’s still out there, everywhere you look.”

Shouldn’t someone out there be trying to put all of the pieces together and asking if Fukushima could somehow be responsible for all of this?

For much more on the epidemic of death that we have been witnessing in the Pacific Ocean lately, please check out some of my previous articles about Fukushima…

-”28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima”

-”Something Is Killing Life All Over The Pacific Ocean – Could It Be Fukushima?”

-”What Is Happening To Alaska? Is Fukushima Responsible For The Mass Animal Deaths?”

And this is a crisis that is not going away any time soon. In fact, it just keeps getting worse. The Japanese government has estimated that approximately 300 tons of highly radioactive water is pouring into the Pacific Ocean from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear facility every single day, and according to a recent RT article, outdoor radiation levels at Fukushima recently hit a new all-time high…

Outdoor radiation levels have reached their highest at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant, warns the operator company. Radiation found in an area near a steel pipe that connects reactor buildings could kill an exposed person in 20 minutes, local media reported.

So the total amount of radioactive material that has been released into the Pacific Ocean is constantly going up, and considering the fact that some of these radioactive particles have a half-life of about 30 years, all of this nuclear material is going to be sitting in the Pacific for a very, very long time.

And guess what? Even more highly radioactive water may soon be released into the Pacific Ocean. The Japanese are running out of places to store the radioactive water that they have been able to capture, and the IAEA is actually recommending that the “storage problem” should be solved by dumping the water into the ocean…

In an attempt to solve the storage problem the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) proposed on Wednesday to consider dumping toxic water into the ocean after lowering the level of radioactive materials.

It is almost as if they consider the Pacific Ocean to be a giant trash dumpster.

And the mainstream media has been greatly misleading the public as to the true nature of the disaster at Fukushima.

According to nuclear expert Mycle Schneider, the lead author of the World Nuclear Industry status reports, the rest of the world should be very alarmed by what is happening…

“It is much worse than we have been led to believe, much worse.”

But the mainstream media in the United States really doesn’t talk much about Fukushima anymore.

They seem to believe that it isn’t a crisis worth talking about anymore.

Meanwhile, dangerous radiation levels are being measured all over the country.

NETC, an independent organization that collects and monitors radiation data from locations all over America, recently issued an alert for Austin, Texas and Grand Junction, Colorado…

RADCON 5 Alerts have been reported in both Austin, Texas as well as Grand Junction, Colorado as shared in the screenshots below from the Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center – NETC. Radiation levels are also way above normal background levels in St. George, Utah and Augusta, Georgia.

Over the past couple of years, radiation levels have been abnormally high in the U.S. – especially in the western half of the country.

So why isn’t the mainstream media talking about this?

And is all of this something that we should be deeply concerned about?

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2013/December23/235.html#Xtofkxmxoda6zYuT.99

According to an absolutely shocking study that has just been
released, one area of the Pacific Ocean floor was 98 percent covered by
decomposing sea creatures in July 2012. But in March 2012, only 1
percent of that same section of the Pacific Ocean floor was covered by
dead sea creatures.

This study has been going on for 24 years, and the scientists that
are running this study say that during “the past 2 years” they have
seen “the biggest amounts of this detritus by far”. In other words, the
scientists that are studying this section of the ocean floor have never
seen anything quite like this before.

And when you consider this in conjunction with all of the other
reports that have been coming in of sea creatures dying all over the
Pacific Ocean, it is only natural to start asking some hard questions.
Could radiation from Fukushima be responsible for all of this death?

National Geographic recently published a very interesting article
about this study of the Pacific Ocean floor. The scientists running the
study cannot really explain the very strange changes that they have
observed since 2011…

In March 2012, less than one percent of the seafloor beneath
Station M was covered in dead sea salps. By July 1, more than 98 percent
of it was covered in the decomposing organisms, according to the study,
published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences.

The major increase in activity of deep-sea life in 2011 and 2012
weren’t limited to Station M, though: Other ocean-research stations
reported similar data.

Although climate change is a leading contender for explaining the
major increases in 2011 and 2012, Huffard says that these spikes could
be part of a longer-term trend that scientists haven’t yet observed.

Even though they do not have a “scientific explanation” for what
is happening, the scientists are admitting that they have never seen a
die-off of this magnitude in the 24 years that this study has been going
on…

“In the 24 years of this study, the past 2 years have been the
biggest amounts of this detritus by far,” said study leader Christine
Huffard, a marine biologist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute in California.

Could this phenomenon possibly be related to what has been going on at Fukushima?

It should be a fair question to ask. Especially in light of all
of the other sea creature deaths that have been happening all over the
Pacific. The following is a short excerpt from a recent CNN article…

“One of my favorite sayings right now is we may be experiencing
global weirding,” Jim Covel at the Monterey Bay Aquarium said.

The Pacific recently has seen its fair share of weird. Last year,
there was an invasion of Humboldt squid around coastal California and
sea lion dying off in worrying numbers. And in recent weeks,
disturbingly, sea stars – from Alaska to San Diego are wasting away,
literally melting.

So what in the world would cause sea stars to begin “literally melting”?

Once again, scientists do not have an answer.

But clearly, something definitely appears to be significantly
affecting life throughout the Pacific Ocean. In fact, one very
experienced Australian adventurer has stated that he felt as though “the
ocean itself was dead” as he journeyed from Japan to San Francisco
recently…

The next leg of the long voyage was from Osaka to San Francisco
and for most of that trip the desolation was tinged with nauseous horror
and a degree of fear.

“After we left Japan, it felt as if the ocean itself was dead,” Macfadyen said.

“We hardly saw any living things. We saw one whale, sort of
rolling helplessly on the surface with what looked like a big tumour on
its head. It was pretty sickening.

“I’ve done a lot of miles on the ocean in my life and I’m used to
seeing turtles, dolphins, sharks and big flurries of feeding birds. But
this time, for 3000 nautical miles there was nothing alive to be seen.”

In place of the missing life was garbage in astounding volumes.

“Part of it was the aftermath of the tsunami that hit Japan a
couple of years ago. The wave came in over the land, picked up an
unbelievable load of stuff and carried it out to sea. And it’s still out
there, everywhere you look.”

Shouldn’t someone out there be trying to put all of the pieces
together and asking if Fukushima could somehow be responsible for all of
this?

For much more on the epidemic of death that we have been
witnessing in the Pacific Ocean lately, please check out some of my
previous articles about Fukushima…

-”28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima”

-”Something Is Killing Life All Over The Pacific Ocean – Could It Be Fukushima?”

-”What Is Happening To Alaska? Is Fukushima Responsible For The Mass Animal Deaths?”

And this is a crisis that is not going away any time soon. In
fact, it just keeps getting worse. The Japanese government has
estimated that approximately 300 tons of highly radioactive water is
pouring into the Pacific Ocean from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear
facility every single day, and according to a recent RT article, outdoor
radiation levels at Fukushima recently hit a new all-time high…

Outdoor radiation levels have reached their highest at Japan’s
Fukushima nuclear plant, warns the operator company. Radiation found in
an area near a steel pipe that connects reactor buildings could kill an
exposed person in 20 minutes, local media reported.

So the total amount of radioactive material that has been released
into the Pacific Ocean is constantly going up, and considering the fact
that some of these radioactive particles have a half-life of about 30
years, all of this nuclear material is going to be sitting in the
Pacific for a very, very long time.

And guess what? Even more highly radioactive water may soon be
released into the Pacific Ocean. The Japanese are running out of places
to store the radioactive water that they have been able to capture, and
the IAEA is actually recommending that the “storage problem” should be
solved by dumping the water into the ocean…

In an attempt to solve the storage problem the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) proposed on Wednesday to consider dumping
toxic water into the ocean after lowering the level of radioactive
materials.

It is almost as if they consider the Pacific Ocean to be a giant trash dumpster.

And the mainstream media has been greatly misleading the public as to the true nature of the disaster at Fukushima.

According to nuclear expert Mycle Schneider, the lead author of
the World Nuclear Industry status reports, the rest of the world should
be very alarmed by what is happening…

“It is much worse than we have been led to believe, much worse.”

But the mainstream media in the United States really doesn’t talk much about Fukushima anymore.

They seem to believe that it isn’t a crisis worth talking about anymore.

Meanwhile, dangerous radiation levels are being measured all over the country.

NETC, an independent organization that collects and monitors
radiation data from locations all over America, recently issued an alert
for Austin, Texas and Grand Junction, Colorado…

RADCON 5 Alerts have been reported in both Austin, Texas as well
as Grand Junction, Colorado as shared in the screenshots below from the
Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center – NETC. Radiation levels are also way
above normal background levels in St. George, Utah and Augusta, Georgia.

Over the past couple of years, radiation levels have been
abnormally high in the U.S. – especially in the western half of the
country.

So why isn’t the mainstream media talking about this?

And is all of this something that we should be deeply concerned about?

Subject: Fwd: FW: Reading the Signs - How to tell when the banking
system is about to close 3 days or so before it happens

NOTE: This has been censored the video has a talk over of the
separate recording AUDIO only after the first 3 minutes. Turn off the speaker on
the video and the overwritten AUDIO that was cut will play loud and
clear.

How to
read what’s coming. This video purports to tell you what the scenario will
look like just before the banks shut their doors (which will likely happen on a
Friday on the pretext of a system wide computer virus, etc). They will
then seize your accounts and the contents of your safe deposit boxes, followed
by a Federal declaration of martial law. Jon Corzine’s looting of the
depositor’s accounts at MF Global was merely a trial balloon in preparation for
the coming wholesale theft of all bank accounts and safe deposit
boxes:

Ferocious, Weak and Crazy: The North Korean Strategy

Editor's Note:The
following Geopolitical Weekly originally ran in January 2013. We repost
it as recent turmoil in North Korea returns it to the spotlight.By George Friedman
North Korea's state-run media reported Sunday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un
has ordered the country's top security officials to take "substantial
and high-profile important state measures," which has been widely
interpreted to mean that North Korea is planning its third nuclear test.
Kim said the orders were retaliation for the U.S.-led push to tighten
U.N. sanctions on Pyongyang following North Korea's missile test in
October. A few days before Kim's statement emerged, the North Koreans
said future tests would target the United States, which North Korea
regards as its key adversary along with Washington's tool, South Korea.
North Korea has been using the threat of tests and the tests
themselves as weapons against its neighbors and the United States for
years. On the surface, threatening to test weapons does not appear
particularly sensible. If the test fails, you look weak. If it succeeds,
you look dangerous without actually having a deliverable weapon.
And the closer you come to having a weapon, the more likely someone is
to attack you so you don't succeed in actually getting one. Developing a
weapon in absolute secret would seem to make more sense. When the
weapon is ready, you display it, and you have something solid to
threaten enemies with.
North Korea, of course, has been doing this for years and doing it
successfully, so what appears absurd on the surface quite obviously
isn't. On the contrary, it has proved to be a very effective maneuver.
North Korea is estimated to have a gross domestic product of about $28
billion, about the same as Latvia or Turkmenistan. Yet it has maneuvered
itself into a situation where the United States, Japan, China, Russia
and South Korea have sat down with it at the negotiating table
in a bid to persuade it not to build weapons. Sometimes, the great
powers give North Korea money and food to persuade it not to develop
weapons. It sometimes agrees to a halt, but then resumes its nuclear
activities. It never completes a weapon, but it frequently threatens to
test one. And when it carries out such tests, it claims its tests are
directed at the United States and South Korea, as if the test itself
were a threat.
There is brilliance in North Korea's strategy. When the Soviet Union
collapsed, North Korea was left in dire economic straits. There were
reasonable expectations that its government would soon collapse, leading
to the unification of the Korean Peninsula. Naturally, the goal of the
North Korean government was regime survival, so it was terrified that
outside powers would invade or support an uprising against it. It needed
a strategy that would dissuade anyone from trying that. Being weak in
every sense, this wasn't going to be easy, but the North Koreans
developed a strategy that we described more than 10 years ago as ferocious, weak and crazy.
North Korea has pursued this course since the 1990s, and the latest
manifestation of this strategy was on display last week. The strategy
has worked marvelously and is still working.

A Three-Part Strategy

First, the North Koreans positioned themselves as ferocious by
appearing to have, or to be on the verge of having, devastating power.
Second, they positioned themselves as being weak such that no matter how
ferocious they are, there would be no point in pushing them because
they are going to collapse anyway. And third, they positioned themselves
as crazy, meaning pushing them would be dangerous since they were
liable to engage in the greatest risks imaginable at the slightest
provocation.
In the beginning, Pyongyang's ability to appear ferocious was limited to the North Korean army's power to shell Seoul.
It had massed artillery along the border and could theoretically
devastate the southern capital, assuming the North had enough
ammunition, its artillery worked and air power didn't lay waste to its
massed artillery. The point was not that it was going to level Seoul but
that it had the ability to do so. There were benefits to outsiders in
destabilizing the northern regime, but Pyongyang's ferocity -- uncertain
though its capabilities were -- was enough to dissuade South Korea and
its allies from trying to undermine the regime. Its later move to
develop missiles and nuclear weapons followed from the strategy of
ferocity -- since nothing was worth a nuclear war, enraging the regime
by trying to undermine it wasn't worth the risk.
Many nations have tried to play the ferocity game, but the North Koreans added a brilliant and subtle twist to it: being weak. The North Koreans advertised the weakness of their economy,
particularly its food insecurity, by various means. This was not done
overtly, but by allowing glimpses of its weakness. Given the weakness of
its economy and the difficulty of life in North Korea, there was no
need to risk trying to undermine the North. It would collapse from its
own defects.
This was a double inoculation. The North Koreans' ferocity with
weapons whose effectiveness might be questionable, but still pose an
unquantifiable threat, caused its enemies to tread carefully. Why risk
unleashing its ferocity when its weakness would bring it down? Indeed, a
constant debate among Western analysts over the North's power versus
its weakness combines to paralyze policymakers.
The North Koreans added a third layer to perfect all of this. They
portrayed themselves as crazy, working to appear unpredictable, given to
extravagant threats and seeming to welcome a war. Sometimes, they
reaffirmed they were crazy via steps like sinking South Korean ships for
no apparent reason. As in poker, so with the North: You can play
against many sorts of players, from those who truly understand the odds
to those who are just playing for fun, but never, ever play poker
against a nut. He is totally unpredictable, can't be gamed, and if you play with his head you don't know what will happen.
So long as the North Koreans remained ferocious, weak and crazy, the
best thing to do was not irritate them too much and not to worry what
kind of government they had. But being weak and crazy was the easy part
for the North; maintaining its appearance of ferocity was more
challenging. Not only did the North Koreans have to keep increasing
their ferocity, they had to avoid increasing it so much that it
overpowered the deterrent effect of their weakness and craziness.

A Cautious Nuclear Program

Hence, we have North Korea's eternal nuclear program. It never quite
produces a weapon, but no one can be sure whether a weapon might be
produced. Due to widespread perceptions that the North Koreans are
crazy, it is widely believed they might rush to complete their weapon
and go to war at the slightest provocation. The result is the United
States, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea holding meetings with North
Korea to try to persuade it not to do something crazy.
Interestingly, North Korea never does anything significant and
dangerous, or at least not dangerous enough to break the pattern. Since
the Korean War, North Korea has carefully calculated its actions, timing
them to avoid any move that could force a major reaction. We see this
caution built into its nuclear program. After more than a decade of very
public ferocity, the North Koreans have not come close to a deliverable
weapon. But since if you upset them, they just might, the best bet has
been to tread lightly and see if you can gently persuade them not to do
something insane.
The North's positioning is superb: Minimal risky action sufficient to
lend credibility to its ferocity and craziness plus endless rhetorical
threats maneuvers North Korea into being a major global threat in the
eyes of the great powers. Having won themselves this position, the North
Koreans are not about to risk it, even if a 20-something leader is
hurling threats.

The China Angle and the Iranian Pupil

There is, however, a somewhat more interesting dimension emerging.
Over the years, the United States, Japan and South Korea have looked to
the Chinese to intercede and persuade the North Koreans not to do
anything rash. This diplomatic pattern has established itself so firmly
that we wonder what the actual Chinese role is in all this. China is
currently engaged in territorial disputes with U.S. allies in the South
and East China seas. Whether anyone would or could go to war over
islands in these waters is dubious, but the situation is still worth
noting.
The Chinese and the Japanese have been particularly hostile toward one another
in recent weeks in terms of rhetoric and moving their ships around. A
crisis in North Korea, particularly one in which the North tested a
nuclear weapon, would inevitably initiate the diplomatic dance whereby
the Americans and Japanese ask the Chinese to intercede with the North Koreans.
The Chinese would oblige. This is not a great effort for them, since
having detonated a nuclear device, the North isn't interested in doing
much more. In fact, Pyongyang will be drawing on the test's proverbial
fallout for some time. The Chinese are calling in no chits with the
North Koreans, and the Americans and Japanese -- terribly afraid of what
the ferocious, weak, crazy North Koreans will do next -- will be
grateful to China for defusing the "crisis." And who could be so
churlish as to raise issues on trade or minor islands when China has
used its power to force North Korea to step down?
It is impossible for us to know what the Chinese are thinking, and we
have no overt basis for assuming the Chinese and North Koreans are
collaborating, but we do note that China has taken an increasing
interest in stabilizing North Korea. For its part, North Korea has
tended to stage these crises -- and their subsequent Chinese
interventions -- at quite useful times for Beijing.
It should also be noted that other countries have learned the
ferocious, weak, crazy maneuver from North Korea. Iran is the best
pupil. It has convincingly portrayed itself as ferocious via its nuclear
program, endlessly and quite publicly pursuing its program without ever
quite succeeding. It is also persistently seen as weak, perpetually facing economic crises
and wrathful mobs of iPod-wielding youths. Whether Iran can play the
weakness card as skillfully as North Korea remains unclear -- Iran just
doesn't have the famines North Korea has.
Additionally, Iran's rhetoric at times can certainly be considered
crazy: Tehran has carefully cultivated perceptions that it would wage
nuclear war even if this meant the death of all Iranians. Like North
Korea, Iran also has managed to retain its form of government and its
national sovereignty. Endless predictions of the fall of the Islamic
republic to a rising generation have proved false.
I do not mean to appear to be criticizing the "ferocious, weak and
crazy" strategy. When you are playing a weak hand, such a strategy can
yield demonstrable benefits. It preserves regimes, centers one as a
major international player and can wring concessions out of major
powers. It can be pushed too far, however, when the fear of ferocity and
craziness undermines the solace your opponents find in your weakness.
Diplomacy is the art of nations achieving their ends without
resorting to war. It is particularly important for small, isolated
nations to survive without going to war. As in many things, the paradox
of appearing willing to go to war in spite of all rational calculations
can be the foundation for avoiding war. It is a sound strategy, and for
North Korea and Iran, for the time being at least, it has worked.

The Ukrainian decision NOT to submit itself to economic suicide by signing a free trade deal with the collapsing EU, and to look instead towards the still-developing Eurasian nations of Russia and China, marks the beginning of a "paradigm shift" in world history. The hysterical response, to overthrow the elected Ukraine government over a sovereign decision to survive, shows the desperation of the British financial empire now dominating the US and the European Union. This article is in the current issue of EIR, December 20, 2013 issue Mike Billington

Will Ukraine Be Flashpoint for Thermonuclear War?

by Nancy Spannaus

[PDF version of this article]

Dec. 18—The determination by Washington and the European Union to create a confrontation with Moscow over Ukraine's sovereign decision not to sign an Association Agreement with the EU, has once again brought the potential for thermonuclear war to the fore.

"We are talking about a real confrontation," said Lyndon LaRouche to LaRouche PAC-TV Dec. 16. The British-dominated West is threatening thermonuclear war to try to back Eurasia down, but Eurasia will not give in. That means that, unless the current dominant policy in the West is stopped, the world is headed for extinction.

On the surface, the aggressive response of British and U.S. institutions to Ukraine's decision to reject what amounts to a colonialist free-trade agreement, in favor of closer economic ties with Moscow, makes no sense. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, has a democratically elected government, and should have a right to determine its economic course. This is particularly the case since the deals being offered by Moscow provide some hope of saving Ukraine's high-technology industries, while the EU Agreement demands Ukraine open its borders to EU exports, at a point where Ukraine's own products would not meet EU standards for export in the other direction. In addition, the EU deal was conditioned on Kiev's coming to terms with another section of the infamous Troika that has savaged European economies: the IMF, which demanded that Ukraine hike its energy prices 40% for domestic users, implement a wage freeze, and impose other austerity measures.

But, as Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed out immediately after the streets of Kiev were filled with opponents of the Ukrainian government decision, the Western response has nothing to do with the economic deal as such. Rather, the EU Association Agreement was intended as what former Congressman Dennis Kucinich called a "Trojan Horse" for NATO, a means of using Ukraine, with its 1,426-mile border with Russia, as a geopolitical flank against Russia.

This marks the Ukraine agreement as part of the NATO encirclement strategy against which Russia has been warning vociferously, particularly in the form of the ballistic missile defense system. Such encirclement, which would threaten to neutralize Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent, is a casus belli for Moscow, as then-President Dmitri Medvedev pointed out in November 2011.[1]The Russians Are Clear

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov delivered a cogent analysis and an attack on the Troika's (IMF, European Commission, European Central Bank) orchestration of the destabilization of Ukraine, in a Rossiya-24 TV interview aired Dec. 14.

"Provocateurs with a long-prepared script" are behind the events in Kiev, Lavrov said. Regarding the intensity of the demonstrations against Russia, he asked, did the Ukraine government declare war on some peaceful nation; did it announce the building of a nuclear bomb against its obligations; did it order the murder of somebody?

"A demonstration of such a scale and with such bitter slogans has been arranged as if the country had declared war on some peaceful state contrary to the Ukrainian people's will. This goes beyond normal human analysis. There is no doubt that some provocateurs stand behind this. I am really saddened to see that our Western partners have apparently lost the sense of reality."

Lavrov stated that the EU free-trade treaty with Ukraine would decimate Ukraine's remaining industrial base: "The EU is trying to impose its position on the so-called Eastern Partnership countries, which now compete with an overwhelming majority of European goods. But it is luring them into a free-trade area by acquiring their markets, which will be immediately filled with more competitive products from Europe, killing the corresponding industries in the countries that would sign Association Agreements, and causing a problem for Russia, because we don't have customs borders with these countries either."

Lavrov polemically criticized the hypocrisy of the EU and the Troika, which are facing revolts against their economic policies, asking what would happen, were he, Lavrov, to show up at demonstrations in those countries, as Western officials are doing in Kiev: "So there I am walking among demonstrators supporting this party and calling on Germany to change its attitude towards the EU and separate from it. How would that be taken? I believe that the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO, the Council of Europe, and the OSCE would have all passed resolutions on how outrageous it was, and how Russians were meddling in Germany's internal affairs."Outrageous Interference

The outside meddling in Ukraine is blatant and provocative. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, toured Kiev's Central Square with opposition party leaders on Dec. 11, to hand out cookies. Nadia Diuk, vice president for Programs at the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, has been parked in Kiev for weeks.

Ostentatious visits by European officials, including outgoing German Defense Minister Guido Westerwelle, have also served to buoy the demonstrators.

Then, on Dec. 15, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) showed up to cheer on the opposition. The two stood side by side with Oleh Tyahnybok, head of the racist Svoboda Party, who blames "organized Jewry" and the "Moscovite-Jew mafia" for Ukraine's problems. The Simon Wiesenthal Foundation has counted Tyahnybok as one of the top ten anti-Semites globally—but this did not deter Nuland, EU foreign relations chief Lady Ashton of the U.K., or McCain, who is now threatening to bring a bill for sanctions against Ukraine. All of these people rubbed elbows with or had their hands kissed by Tyahnybok.Russians Preparing

On Dec. 17, at the meeting of the Ukraine-Russia Interstate Commission, President Putin and Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych sealed an agreement which will lead to $15 billion in Russian investment in Ukrainian securities, cut the price of Russian natural gas to Ukraine by one-third, and initiate other economic agreements, including on space. Despite the obvious advantages for Ukraine, the "democracy" advocates in Kiev's Central Square still complained.

What is clear is that Russia is in the cross-hairs of the British imperial forces behind the demonstrators, and the EU/U.S. onslaught. And Moscow is acting accordingly.

On Dec. 16, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed media reports that it has deployed short-range Iskander missiles into the Kaliningrad region, near its borders with the Baltic states. This is precisely what President Medvedev said in November 2011, that Russia would have to do, if NATO proceeded with its Euro-BMD encirclement.

On Dec. 11, Vice Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin reiterated Moscow's strategic posture toward NATO and the U.S., addressing the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) policy of Washington. Rogozin emphasized that the Russian Federation would respond with nuclear weapons if attacked by long-range missiles, even if they were armed with non-nuclear warheads. "One can experiment as long as one wishes by deploying non-nuclear warheads on strategic missiles. But one should keep in mind that if there is an attack against us, we will certainly resort to using nuclear weapons in certain situations to defend our territory and state interests," said Rogozin, whose portfolio includes Russia's defense industries.

Speaking before the State Duma, Rogozin said that Russia's Advanced Research Foundation (ARF) will develop a military response to the American PGS program. He testified that the ARF, a special group commissioned by Putin in late 2012, has reviewed over 1,000 military-strategic proposals, selected 52 for their agenda, and prioritized eight of those, one of which is a response to the U.S. PGS.

By Ted LaguatanPHILIPPINE President Benigno Simeon Aquino has just requested
American President Barrack Obama to designate the Philippines as a
Temporary Protected Status country.

PHILIPPINE
President Benigno Simeon Aquino has just requested American President
Barrack Obama to designate the Philippines as a Temporary Protected
Status country. – See more at:
http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/editorials/61439-news-flash#sthash.Wt10n0b7.dpuf

PHILIPPINE
President Benigno Simeon Aquino has just requested American President
Barrack Obama to designate the Philippines as a Temporary Protected
Status country. – See more at:
http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/editorials/61439-news-flash#sthash.Wt10n0b7.dpuf

PHILIPPINE
President Benigno Simeon Aquino has just requested American President
Barrack Obama to designate the Philippines as a Temporary Protected
Status country. – See more at:
http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/editorials/61439-news-flash#sthash.Wt10n0b7.dpuf

New York City Hall press conference for TPS for the Philippines. (Photo by Elton Lugay)

What is Temporary Protected Status or TPS?
Under U.S. immigration laws, for humanitarian reasons, the U.S.
Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a country for TPS due to
certain conditions in the country that prevent its nationals from
returning safely or in certain circumstances where the country is unable
to handle the return of its nationals adequately. United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services may grant TPS to certain countries
whose citizens are already in the United States.
The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country:
- Ongoing armed conflict (such as a civil war).
- An environmental disaster (such as an earthquake, a hurricane, or a super typhoon) or epidemic.
- Other extraordinary and temporary conditions.
During a designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or
are found to be eligible upon a preliminary review of their cases:
- Are not removable from the United States.
- May obtain an employment authorization document or EAD.
- May secure a travel document.
Once an individual is granted TPS, he or she cannot be detained on
the basis of his or her immigration status. The designation of the
Philippines as a TPS country will tremendously benefit the thousands of
Filipinos in the United States whether they are in legal or illegal
status. Those who came on various visas and went out of status such as:
tourists; students; crewmen; various workers such as nurses, IT workers,
and others on working visas; those on business visas; investors;
entertainers; religious — they can now find immigration relief. Even
those who came without visas who just crossed the border from Canada and
Mexico can be granted TPS benefits.
While TPS may not lead to lawful permanent resident status, aside
from the other benefits mentioned above, it enables one to do the
following:
- Apply now or later for any non immigrant status and adjust in the U.S. for which the TPS beneficiary qualifies.
- Apply now or later for any immigrant visa and adjust in the U.S.
for any immigrant visa for which the TPS beneficiary qualifies.
- Apply for any other immigration benefits or protections for which the TPS beneficiary qualifies.
Nationals of certain designated TPS countries who are in the United
States have been tremendously benefitted by their TPS standing. These
countries are El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Somalia, Sudan,
South Sudan and Syria. As a California state bar certified expert on
U.S. immigration law, I regularly observe how TPS designation really
benefits the citizens of these countries. By allowing the citizens of
these countries to stay and work legally in the U.S., both these
countries and the U.S. are benefitted.
The damage suffered by some of these countries granted TPS benefits
because of major natural disasters is arguably much less than that
wrought in the Philippines by super typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda. The
Philippines is definitely qualified to get TPS designation. Various
bipartisan U.S. senators and congressmen support the grant of TPS for
the Philippines. Hundreds of community groups and the Catholic Church
likewise strongly support TPS designation for the Philippines. This can
be done with a simple executive order from President Obama.
But an inherent part of the process is for the president of the
affected country to request the president of the United States for TPS
designation. I’m glad this has now been done.
Here’s the thing: The Philippines is part of the family of nations.
It suffered a major catastrophe causing thousands to lose their lives
and hundreds of thousands to lose their homes and livelihoods. The whole
world knows we need help. That is the issue. It is not about the
capability of a third world government to manage the terrible damage
caused by the super typhoon. The TPS provision in the U.S. immigration
laws was formulated by people with good hearts. It’s the kind of
humanitarian help that the U.S. provides to other nations which makes
America a great nation and which Americans can be truly proud of.. Let’s
graciously accept the help given.
Here’s the other thing: In a very real way, in general, the
Philippine government is not really able to help Filipinos in distress
in the United States. Whether it has to do with immigration issues,
civil rights, job discrimination or other problems, it’s lawyers like me
and community groups that help. Frankly, I and those who help often get
exhausted and frustrated because of no actual Philippine government
help. We sometimes even reach into our own pockets to help those in
distress aside from providing legal and other services.
Asking the president of the U.S. for TPS designation is a very real
way for the president of the Philippines to now provide real help to
thousands of Filipinos in the U.S. who contribute tremendously to the
Philippine economy and to the betterment of the lives of Filipinos in
the homeland.
President Aquino, with all due respect, please do all you can to help
us here. Please call, write or even visit President Barrack Obama if
you must to follow up on your request for TPS designation for U.S.
Filipinos and do whatever else is necessary to get this done. I believe
he is more than willing to do it but some friendly persuasion may be
needed.
To readers: Please disseminate this article far and wide and ask
recipients to do the same. Also email a copy to President Benigno Simeon
Aquino. If President Obama designates the Philippines as a TPS country,
this will be a major benefit to the thousands of Filipinos in the U.S.
and the millions in the Philippines affected by super typhoon
Haiyan/Yolanda.Ted Laguatan is a human rights lawyer in San Francisco,
California. He is one of only 29 U.S. lawyers officially certified
continuously as expert-specialists on U.S. Immigration Law. Email
laguatanlaw@gmail.com.

The government, as part shareholder of
Meralco (Manila Electric Company, the largest power distributor in the
Philippines), is guilty of conflict of interest. It will approve rate increases
for its own profits. Government equity in utilities should be banned.

02

Incumbent politicians are beholdened to
the power sector as contributors to campaign funds. Malacanang defended the
recent Meralco rate increases. Covert campaign contributions from oligarchs and
their corporations should be expose in the media.

03

There is an insidious partnership
between local oligarchs who control the power industry and the World
Bank–USAID–ADB-IMF consortium (the US-controlled international banking system)
to control and dominate the Philippine economy. The power sector plays a
critical role in the economy. Even Malacanang is a puppet to this partnership.
It’s an all-powerful global force.

04

The consortium authored the EPIRA (the
power regulatory law) through proteges, namely, solons, some of whom were power
oligarchs, and USAID-funded study groups. In the guise of breaking up the power
monopoly, EPIRA achieved the exact opposite, strengthening themonopoly (oligopoly). A clear example is the
latest rate increase. The WESM rate increased almost ten fold overnight on the
pretext of the Malampaya shutdown just before Meralco purchased power. Meralco
knew about the shutdown months before. Congress is presently investigating if power
generators and distributors are in collusion to increase rates.

05

The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC)
has consistently approved rate increases which the Supreme Court has
consistently reversed in favor of consumers. The latest increase is in fact a
violation of the EPIRA because it was automatic. There is no such thing as ‘automatic
increase’ in the law. This requires approval and consultation first. Meralco
and ERC consistently deny their partnership.

06

The modus
operandi of Meralco to increase rates is to pile up one application with
the ERC after another, in the hope statistically even 70% are approved. These
applications are so complex finance- and accounting-wise that no layman can
understand the needles in the haystack to be able to launch a protest. Before
the latest increase effective January, there was a previous one approved for
November. Meralco has a team of expensive lawyers to manipulate and maneuver
around the law. They know consumers cannot afford to much their legal service
power.

07

Meralco illegally imposed an
ERC-approved fee to cover future potential default on payments amounting to a
staggering P26 billion, whose interest, protestors say, belong to consumers,
not to Meralco. If you are a low-to-medium consumer of about of 200 plus kilowatt
hours per month, your new bill would mean plus P200 for default security
payments (this is not consumption but insurance), and another P500, for the
Malampaya shutdown increase. So your bill is jumping from P2,000 plus to P3,000
plus, an increase of 30% beyond the capability of the middle class. Meralco is
bleeding the nation dry.

08

Meralco is not afraid of protests for
two reasons, 1) it controls the media and has a PR budget of millions per
month. They can come out with articles justifying increase and suppress
articles saying these are unjust; 2) the threat of electricity cut-off is a
powerful force that make consumers helpless. If they opt to not pay for unjust
rates in protest, their electricity will be cut off. They have no choice and
Meralco knows it.

09

The European, American, and Japanese
Chambers of Commerce report that Meralco has one of the highest rates in the
whole of Asia, higher than Tokyo’s, strangling their businesses. Some are
threatening to move abroad, and indeed some have.

10

The powerful energy oligarchy is complex
and has tentacles reaching out to a labyrinth of other sectors such as mining,
which uses up a lot of power. It has agents in Malacanang, including the all
powerful MICC, which ultimately approves all mining applications. There are
oligarchs in the Cabinet, Senate, Lower House, Chambers of Commerce, etc.

How do you kill the oppressive energy oligarchy?
You don’t and you can’t unless you want to be a martyr. The only thing that can
kill the oligarchy is people power, but that is a tall order. People power
rises only in crisis situations like EDSA. When power rates have increased
three fold, maybe there is a chance. The latest increase is churning up a
tsunami which is still in its infancy. We are slaves of the oligarchy. Greed is
the name of their game.My Dear Bernie,

I only have one simple question for you: Have you ever personally met
or do you know of an atheist who is among those in the powerful energy
oligarchy? As a matter of fact, all those criminals in the Meralco
enterprise all believe and love God as God has always forgiven them of their sins, and crimes, greed, graft, and corruption. Do you understand now why in our sick and corrupt society, I am proud to identify myself as an atheist?

2013 - The Year of the Lie

Bob Barr

12/25/2013 4:26:00 PM - Bob Barr

According to the Chinese calendar, 2013 was the Year of
the Snake. For Americans, however, the year just drawing to a close will
be known as the Year of the Lie. Not since the Nixon Administration --
which ended with Richard Nixon resigning in order to avoid being
impeached -- has the credibility of a President been held in such low
esteem.
Mired in more scandals than fingers and toes on which to count, it
seems President Barack Obama and his defenders spent more time this year
fibbing to the American people than actually running the executive
branch. From the scandals that rocked the IRS, to the disaster that is
ObamaCare, the lies emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have indeed
come – to coin a phrase – “Fast and Furious.” Herewith, the Top Ten Lies
of 2013.Lie Number 10:“[The debt ceiling] is not something that is a negotiating tool. It’s not leverage.” - President Barack Obama, 12/20/13.
Obama’s words in December differ drastically from the actions his
Administration took during October’s government “shutdown.” While
Republicans worked for a budget resolution, the White House
intentionally made the shutdown as worse as possible for citizens and
government workers, including using barricades to block visitors from open-air national monuments.Lie Number 9:“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.” - President Barack Obama, 9/4/13.
Obama’s lack of experience in matters of diplomacy and international
affairs is most obvious in his haphazard approach to foreign policy in
the Middle East. Addressing the matter of chemical weapons in Syria,
Obama sent a “warning shot” to the Assad regime in Damascus,
deliberately using the term “red line” in August to describe what would
prompt America to take military action. When the American public turned
against Obama’s rush to war, he tried amateurishly to flip the script with a lie, contradicting what he said just weeks before.Lie Number 8: “I don’t have time to think about a false controversy.” - National Security Advisory Susan Rice, 12/22/13.
The September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in
Benghazi led to the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador since the
1970s, and the murders of three other American citizens. Yet, Rice,
arguably one of the most powerful players in the Administration because
of her long and close personal relationship with Obama, is still trying
to convince the American public nothing happened. This is one lie that
will likely linger through the 2016 election. Lie Number 7: “The president enrolled in a health care plan made available by the Affordable Care Act on the D.C. marketplace.”
- White House Spokesman Eric Schultz made this glib statement earlier
this week. It sounded good, except for the fact Obama did not “enroll”
in anything. While on a multi-million dollar, taxpayer-funded vacation
in Hawaii, the President’s aides “symbolically” enrolled Obama in the
healthcare exchange. Obama has yet to personally enroll in his namesake
health program, since doing so would require him to navigate the same nightmarish process millions of other Americans are legally being forced to endure.Lie Number 6: “It is transparent, that’s why we set up the FISA court.” - President Barack Obama, 6/17/13.
Obama once promised that his Administration would be the most
“transparent” in history. Such a description of the past five years,
however, could not be further from the truth. Every effort to shine
light on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the epicenter of
the authority under which the National Security Agency has been
surveilling untold billions of American citizens’ electronic
communications – has been resisted and defeated by the Obama
Administration (with enabling support from leaders of both political
parties on Capitol Hill). Lie Number 5: “With regard to potential prosecution of the press
for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever
been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy.” - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, 5/15/13.
When exposed for using the power of the U.S. Department of Justice to
intimidate reporters unfriendly to the Obama Administration, Holder did
what his boss routinely does: simply deny all knowledge.
In this instance, however, media reports quickly linked Holder to the
investigation; in turn prompting a House Judiciary Committee Staff Report
calling the Attorney General’s testimony a “deliberate” attempt to
“circumvent proper congressional oversight and accountability by
distorting the truth about the Justice Department’s investigative
techniques targeting journalists.”Lie Number 4: “Let me repeat: Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime.” - President Barack Obama, 2/12/13. The national debt has increased by 57 percent
under the Obama Administration, compared to 38 percent under President
George W. Bush, and 32 percent under President Bill Clinton. When Obama
promised in this year’s State of the Union speech that his new proposals
would not increase the deficit by a single dime, the GOP calculated
Obama had already increased the deficit by 58.6 trillion dimes. The scope and long-term negative effects of this lie are staggering.Lie Number 3:“I have not done anything wrong.” - Former IRS official Lois Lerner, 5/22/13.
This statement, along with Lerner’s assurance that she committed no
crimes and violated no IRS policies, were the only words Lerner spoke to
the House Oversight Committee before ducking behind the Fifth
Amendment. Despite clear evidence linking
Lerner to illegally-sharing confidential tax information with the
Federal Election Commission, and setting a dangerous precedent of unaccountability for federal misconduct,
Lerner was allowed to simply retire in September, still eligible for
her taxpayer-funded pension. The President, meanwhile, has never
admitted his Administration did anything wrong.Lie Number 2: “Not wittingly. There are cases where [the NSA] could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.” - Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, 3/12/13.
Following the devastating revelations from Edward Snowden regarding the
Obama Administration’s massive, illegal domestic surveillance program,
the notion that the NSA “inadvertently” and “unwittingly” collects
information on innocent American citizens is not only wrong,
but stupid. And, coming from the man in charge of America’s
intelligence community, it becomes an outright lie. Members of the House
Judiciary Committee are not taking Clapper’s “willful lie under oath”
lightly, and are demanding a criminal probe.
Just as former President Clinton tried to avoid the truth by claiming,
“It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is,” Clapper’s effort to avoid
uttering the truth by use of the term “wittingly,” may come back to
haunt him.And Lie Number 1: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”
- President Barack Obama. Perhaps the President should have ended this
phrase with an asterisk and a footnote, considering that literally
millions of Americans are losing their health insurance plans
because of stipulations in ObamaCare. Even PolitiFact, the reliably
left-leaning political “fact-checker” organization, dubbed this quip
from Obama as the organization’s lie-of-the-year.
As I wrote regarding the frightening trend of “New Speak”
in the Obama Administration, democracy can only survive in an
environment in which citizens are given accurate information on issues
affecting them and about people for whom they are asked to vote.
Clearly, if the trend in government illustrated by the routine and
systemic lies practiced by the current Administration continues, our
very way of life is in peril.

from STRATFOR

Israel's Water Challenge

Filters at the Ashkelon seawater reverse osmosis plant south of Tel Aviv in 2008.(DAVID BUIMOVITCH/AFP/Getty Images)

Summary

Israel's successful efforts to
increase water security will lessen one of the country's geographical
constraints. But new sources of water are more energy intensive, and
this could increase Israel's short-term dependence on energy imports
unless domestic energy sources are successfully developed.

Analysis

While Israel enjoys relative national security compared
to its neighbors, which are struggling with internal fragmentation,
this will probably change eventually. Because concerted military efforts
have been required in the past to secure water resources, Israel has
had a strong incentive to develop technological solutions to improve
water security. Additional domestic water resources -- including
increasing desalination capacity and continued efforts to recycle water
-- allow Israel to mitigate one of its inherent geographic constraints.
Israel has substantially increased its capacity to desalinize water
over the last decade. The arid country of roughly 8 million already has a
number of desalination plants -- including the Sorek plant, the world's
largest desalination plant of its kind, which became fully operational
in October. Israel has plans to increase total desalination
capacity through 2020 such that it approaches the estimated annual
amount of internally generated natural water resources.

Naturally Occurring Water

Israel's total annual internal renewable natural sources of fresh
water stand at 0.75 billion cubic meters. It has roughly 265 cubic
meters per year of water per person available. This is well below the
U.N. definition of water poverty, which is anything below 1,000 cubic
meters per person per year.
For groundwater, Israel relies on two main aquifers: the Coastal
Aquifer and the Mountain Aquifer (which is further divided into
subaquifers). Both also lie under the Palestinian territory -- in Gaza
and the West Bank, respectively.

Israel's surface water is concentrated mainly in the north and east
of the country. Israel is part of the Jordan River system, which also
includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the West Bank. The major rivers in
the upper part of the basin include the Hasbani, Banias and the Dan
rivers. These rivers converge to form the Jordan River near the border
of Israel, Lebanon and Syria before flowing into the Sea of Galilee.
Downstream, the Jordan River is further fed by the major tributaries of
the Yarmouk and Zarqa rivers.
Crucially, more than half of Israel's total natural water originates
outside its borders: 310 million cubic meters come from Lebanon, 375
million cubic meters come from Syria and 345 million cubic meters
originate in the West Bank. All the countries in this arid region
compete for the limited resources of the basin. The Palestinian
Authority has between 51 cubic meters per person and 333 cubic meters
per person per year depending on location, while Syria and Lebanon
receive water from additional river systems and operate at 882 cubic
meters per year per person and 1,259 cubic meters per year per person,
respectively. Jordan has 161 cubic meters per year per person.
Allocations of water from transboundary river systems are often
disputed. The last basin-wide allocation scheme for the Jordan River
system came in 1955 with the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan (also
known as the Johnston Plan, named after the American ambassador involved
in negotiations). By allocating water based primarily on agricultural
demand, the plan offered a compromise between participating nations.
However, because many of the Arab states did not want to recognize
Israel, the plan was never ratified. Attitudes toward cooperative
distribution strategies continued to sour during the construction of
Israel's National Water Carrier, which diverted water from the Sea of
Galilee to other points in Israel. However, Jordan and Israel have used
the Unified Plan as the basis for subsequent negotiations.
As one of the downstream riparian nations in the basin, protecting
Israel's northern borders is essential to maintaining control of surface
water resources. Maintaining control of the Golan Heights not only
gives Israel a military advantage in dealing with adversaries to the
north, it also helps to guarantee access to the Sea of Galilee.
Israel historically has demonstrated a willingness to use military
force to guarantee access to water resources. In 1964, Syria, with the
support of the Arab League, began devising plans to divert the Banias
River, threatening roughly 10 percent of Israel's water supply at the
time. From 1965-1967, Israel launched attacks to destroy the diversion
projects under construction in an effort to maintain access to the water
source.
Water rights and distribution parameters were included in the 1994
peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. The Oslo II agreement in 1995
between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority also outlined
parameters for water cooperation in the West Bank, but in practice,
joint management has often failed and the Palestinian population remains
heavily dependent on Israel for access to water.
These treaties also did not remove Israel's imperative to ensure
continued access to water resources, nor its willingness to threaten
military action to ensure it. In 2002, villages in southern Lebanon
installed small pumping stations and irrigation pipelines on the Hasbani
River. Ariel Sharon, Israeli prime minister at the time, claimed these
actions constituted a "case for war" and threated military action. While
no action was taken, the posturing illustrates Israel's wariness of
upstream water management schemes.

Expanding Sources of Water: Conservation and Desalination

The foundations of Israel's current water infrastructure system were
laid in the 1950s and 1960s, when Israel faced a more volatile security
situation. Subsequent decades saw further development of the efficient
use of water and the development of alternative sources. As a result,
Israel has expanded internal water resources without expanding its
physical borders, helping mitigate the risk of international
confrontations over water.

To the same end, Israel has also developed a highly organized water
management system, effectively integrating the whole country. An early
project known as the National Water Carrier, which comprises a series of
canals, pipelines and pumping stations, moves water from the Sea of
Galilee in the comparatively water-rich north to areas of higher demand
and greater need in the central and southern zones.
Israel is also a pioneer and global leader in water-efficient
irrigation technology. Because agriculture remains the largest water
consumer in the country, efficient use in this sector is necessary for
continued sustainable water management. In addition to the irrigation
technology, by effectively treating roughly 400 million cubic meters of
wastewater, using it mostly to irrigate crops, Israel further reduces
pressure on water resources.
Although Israel has used desalination technology on a smaller scale
since the 1960s, the push for a substantial increase in desalination
capacity began only after a major drought in 1998-1999. Several droughts
over the course of the last 15 years drove home the vulnerability of
Israel's water supply. Meanwhile, the overuse of groundwater resources,
especially of the Coastal Aquifer, is degrading the quality of the
water.
Israel currently consumes just under 2 billion cubic meters of water
per year, and while water management has the ability to improve the
efficiency of water usage, increasing populations in the region will
continue to pressure these limited resources. These factors combined
have pushed Israel toward desalination.
When the Sorek plant became fully operational in October, Israel
gained 150 million cubic meters per year of desalination capacity. Total
seawater desalination capacity is expected to reach 600 million cubic
meters per year by 2015 and could reach 750 million cubic meters per
year by 2020. The production cost of desalinized water depends on the
plant, but averages $0.65 per cubic meter, with the new Sorek plant
costing roughly $0.50 per cubic meter. This is compared to $0.15-$0.45
for water from natural sources. Advances in the technology that Israel
uses, including technologies that improve the energy efficiency of the
plants, have helped drive the costs down compared to previous
desalination technology. But desalinated water remains far more
energy-intensive than naturally sourced water, and it increases demands
for power on the national electricity grid and from independent natural
gas generators.

Short-Term Dependence on Imported Energy

Because Israel has traditionally been an energy importer, increasing
reliance on an energy-intensive water resource could in turn increase
Israel's dependence on energy-exporting nations. Natural gas will likely
be the predominant fuel used to produce desalinated water. The Israeli
electrical grid is projected to shift further toward natural gas and
away from coal in the coming years, while the desalination plants often
independently employ natural gas generators.
The total fuel required will vary based both on the type of
desalination plant, as well as the type of power generation. Even with
newer, more efficient equipment, the operation of more than 500 million
cubic meters of desalination capacity could require more than 100
million cubic meters of natural gas or the equivalent energy from some
other fuel sources to produce the additional power necessary to run the
plants.
Israel had previously been an importer of natural gas, but the total
volume of imports has declined in recent years. As of August 2013,
imports were only accounting for 13 percent of total consumption.
Furthermore, offshore discoveries in the eastern Mediterranean,
including the Leviathan fields projected to come online as early as
2016, mean Israel has the potential to become a natural gas exporter.
While there are many political and technical constraints surrounding the development and subsequent use of these fields, increased
levels of domestic energy production could reduce dependence on foreign
partners in terms of energy. This is especially important as Israel
pursues a strategy of relying on more energy-intensive water resources.

Outlook

Israel traditionally requires a third-party sponsor to survive. And
even with the added desalination capacity, Israel may still need to use
water from external sources. But it has successfully adjusted to the
environment and better insulated itself from its neighbors,
complementing an established military superiority. And this could
provide additional maneuverability in future negotiations.
Israel is momentarily in a secure strategic position.
Syria will likely remain in a state of civil war for an extended
period, and Lebanon remains fragile and fragmented. Israel maintains a
working relationship with other neighbors, such as the Hashemite regime
in Jordan, as well as Fatah and the Palestinian National Authority and
the Egyptian military. This status quo seems unlikely to change in the
short term. But although Israel is in a relatively stable position, it
knows how mercurial the surrounding region is and will likely still
behave proactively around national security issues.
Israel's proactive solution to ensuring water security is to develop
additional domestic resources. Though this will require more imported
energy in the short term, the continued development of domestic energy
resources could act as a counter-balance, even as water resources become
more energy-intensive.

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com